Plaintiff
Yassna Nathalie Abarzua seeks review of the decision by
defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“the
Commissioner”), finding that she was not disabled and
not entitled to Social Security Disability
(“SSD”) benefits under Title II of the Social
Security Act (the “Act”). Plaintiff filed for
disability benefits based on a myriad of injuries: thirteen
physical impairments, including back, knee, heart
impairments, vertigo, hearing loss, hepatitis C, diabetes,
hypertension and morbid obesity; and four mental impairments,
including depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorder, and
post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”).

Now
before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for
judgment on the pleadings. For the reasons set forth below,
defendant's motion is GRANTED and plaintiff's motion
is DENIED.

I.
PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A.
Procedural Background

Plaintiff
applied for SSD benefits on July 10, 2010. (Tr. 360-63,
388-95.)[1]The Social Security Administration
(“SSA”) denied her claims. Plaintiff then
requested a hearing before an administrative law judge
(“ALJ”) which was held on June 17, 2011. (Tr.
42-59.) On November 4, 2011, the ALJ issued a decision
finding that plaintiff was not disabled. (Tr. 145-61.) On
April 25, 2013, the Appeals Council vacated the ALJ's
decision and remanded the case for another hearing. (Tr.
162-67.) The plaintiff and her attorney appeared three
additional times in a continued series of hearings on October
16, 2013 (Tr. 68-75), April 24, 2014 (Tr. 60-67), and June
19, 2014 (Tr. 76-143). On April 7, 2015, the ALJ issued a
second decision, again finding that plaintiff was not
disabled. (Tr. 12-40.)

The
ALJ's 2015 decision became the final decision of the
Commissioner when the Appeals Council denied plaintiff's
request for review on August 8, 2016. (Tr. 1- 7.)

B.
Factual Background

The
Court recites only those facts relevant to its review. A more
thorough summary of plaintiff's medical history can be
found in the parties' briefing and in the extensive
administrative record. The period at issue for this appeal is
from July 10, 2010, the date on which plaintiff applied for
SSA benefits, through April 7, 2015, the date of the
ALJ's final decision.

1.
Plaintiff's Personal History

Plaintiff
was born in 1971. (Tr. 144.) She completed ninth grade but
did not graduate from high school or obtain a General
Equivalency Degree. (Tr. 390.) Plaintiff was employed briefly
from January through August of 2008, as a childcare provider
for her neighbor. (Tr. 55.) Otherwise, she has not been
employed.

Plaintiff
was in prison from 2000-2001 for burglary. (Tr. 47.) She used
heroin, crack cocaine, and cocaine from 1991 until March
2007, and during the relevant period was in a methadone
program. (Tr. 47, 104, 568.)

Plaintiff
is able to speak a little bit of English, but her preferred
language is Spanish. (Tr. 80-81.) Through an interpreter, she
testified that she is not able to read or write in English.
(Id.)

At her
hearings, plaintiff testified that she lived with her
nineteen-year-old daughter. (Tr. 46-47.) She reported that
she attended a methadone program on a daily basis; travel to
the program involved changing subway lines twice and walking
about four blocks. (Tr. 56-57.) In sum, her travel each way
was about thirty minutes. (Tr. 56.) She reported that she
would often stop at church on the way home. (Tr. 57.) She
further testified to traveling to Puerto Rico for seven days
in 2010 in order to attend to family matters. (Id.)

In her
June 2011 hearings, she testified that it was difficult for
her to lift more than five pounds and to stand or walk for
long without rest. (Tr. 52-53.) She reported pain in her
back, numbness in her legs, which made standing difficult,
and arthritis, which caused her to drop things. (Tr. 46.) In
her June 2014 hearing, she reported pain in her neck, low
back, and right knee. (Tr. 82.)

Over
the relevant period the plaintiff was examined by several
doctors. The Court will review each in turn.

First,
on August 10, 2010, plaintiff was examined by consultative
physical Dr. William Lathan. (Tr. 571-74.) Dr. Lathan
observed that plaintiff had a normal gait, could walk on her
heels and toes without difficulty, could perform a full
squat, and had a normal stance. (Tr. 572.) He noted that she
was not in acute distress, and that, though she carried a
cane, she was able to walk without one, and did not need help
changing or getting on or off of the examination table.
(Id.)

Dr.
Lathan's examination showed a full range of motion in
plaintiff's shoulders, elbows, forearms, wrists, hips,
knees, and ankles. (Tr. 573.) She had full flexion,
extension, lateral flexion, and rotary movement of both her
cervical and lumbar spine. (Id.) She had no
scoliosis or other abnormalities in her thoracic spine.
(Id.) Her joints were stable and non-tender;
straight leg raising (“SLR”) was
negative.[2] (Id.) Her neurologic examination
showed that she had full strength in both her upper and lower
extremities and that her deep tendon reflexes were
physiologic and equal in her upper and lower extremities.
(Id.) She had full grip strength and intact hand and
finger dexterity. (Id.)

As a
result of his examination, Dr. Lathan found that plaintiff
had a moderate restriction for prolonged standing, prolonged
walking, lifting, pushing, pulling, and strenuous exertion.
(Id.)

On
September 14, 2011, plaintiff had a magnetic resonance
imaging (an “MRI”) of her spine at Madison Avenue
Radiology Center. (Tr. 1170-71, 1305-08, 1650-53.) The MRI of
her cervical spine showed a mild disc bulge at ¶ 5-6, a
straightening of the cervical spine, possibly due to muscle
spasms, and no significant spinal stenosis or
myelopathy.[3] (Tr. 1170.) The MRI of her lumbar spine
showed multilevel bulges at ¶ 3-4, L4-5, and L5-S1,
straightening of the lumbar spine, possibly due to muscle
spasms, and no significant spinal stenosis or severe neural
foraminal narrowing.[4] (Tr. 1171.) The physicians' assistant
who ordered the MRI, Angela Rosenberg, PhD, noted that she
responded well to medication and did not suggest surgery, and
checked the box on the functional assessment form that
indicated that plaintiff would be unable to work for at least
12 months. (Tr. 1262.)

On
November 10, 2011, plaintiff was examined by physical
medicine and rehabilitation specialist, Dr. Robert Hecht.
(Tr. 1172-73.) Dr. Hecht noted tenderness and a restricted
range of motion in both the cervical and lumbar spine, and
positive SLR, but no spasms and normal
lordosis.[5] (Tr. 1172.) Hecht also observed a full
range of motion and full strength in her shoulders, elbows,
and wrists, intact sensation, and full reflexes in her
triceps, biceps, and wrists. (Id.) He further
observed that she had full range of motion and strength in
both hips, knees, and ankles, intact sensation, and full
reflexes. (Tr. 1173.) He diagnosed plaintiff with cervical
and lumbosacral sprain-strain and disc bulges and recommended
physical therapy. (Id.)

Plaintiff
sought care at the White Pines Medical Group in Rochester,
New York, at a time when she relocated there temporarily.
(Tr. 1393-1425.) She sought treatment between February and
May 2013, at which time she left the practice when Dr. Daniel
Koretz told plaintiff he would no longer prescribe controlled
substances, due to the fact that she had not reported her
methadone treatment after signing a controlled substance
agreement. (Tr. 1415.)

Plaintiff
sought occasional care from Dr. David Khasidy starting in
December 2012.[6] (Tr. 1501.) On January 6, 2014, he filled
out a “multiple impairment questionnaire.” (Tr.
1501-07.) He diagnosed plaintiff with cervical and lumbar
spine radiculopathy with disc herniations, borderline carpal
tunnel syndrome, hypertension, and an enlarged thyroid. (Tr.
1501.) He further noted that plaintiff had a decreased range
of motion, decreased sensation in the lower and upper
extremities, decreased ambulation, pain, and loss of
sensation, as well as anxiety and depression. (Tr. 1501-02.)
When asked to indicate plaintiff's abilities, he noted
that she could never lift or carry anything, even objects
under ten pounds, that she could not sit continuously, that
she needed to get up from sitting every ten minutes for
fifteen minutes, and that she could not walk continuously.
(Tr. 1503.) He found that she had significant limitations in
doing repetitive reaching, handling, fingering, and lifting,
and marked limitations in grasping, turning, twisting, using
her fingers and hands for fine manipulations, and using her
arms for reaching and overhead reaching. (Tr. 1504.) He
opined that she was unable to keep her neck in a constant
position, that she was incapable of even “low
stress” work, and that she would need breaks every
fifteen minutes. (Tr. 1505-06.) When asked what “other
limitations” plaintiff had, Dr. Khasidy chose all
available limitations: psychological, the need to avoid
wetness, noise, fumes, gases, humidity, temperature extremes,
dust, and heights, limited vision, and no pushing, pulling,
kneeling, bending, or stooping. (Tr. 1507.)

On June
4, 2014, plaintiff was examined by Dr. Tamer Elbaz, who
performed an arthrocentesis (aspiration of fluid) and steroid
injection in her right knee. (Tr. 1658-64.) He recommended
that plaintiff avoid “repetitive forceful, strenuous,
twisting, jerky activities” which might aggravate her
“lumbar disc displacement” and also to avoid
“activities like pulling, bending, lifting, or carrying
anything heavy.” (Tr. 1662.)

Finally,
in September 2014, plaintiff was examined by consultative
physician Dr. Joseph Ha. (Tr. 1741-1745.) Dr. Ha noted that
plaintiff's gait was antalgic, that she was unable to
walk on heels and toes, and that she walked with a cane. (Tr.
1743.) He found her hand and finger dexterity clumsy, but
noted that she had full strength in both hands.
(Id.) He noted limitations in her upper extremities
as well as in her cervical spine, mild tenderness in her
lumbar spine, but no spasm, positive SLR, and limitations in
her lower extremities. (Tr. 1743-44.) He opined that she had
“marked limitations” in heavy lifting, squatting,
kneeling, crouching, stair climbing, walking long distances,
standing long periods, sitting long periods, and using her
hands for fine/gross manual activities. (Tr. 1744.) He noted
that she reported difficulty with daily activities such as
cooking, cleaning, laundry, and shopping. (Tr. 1742.)

He
opined that she could frequently lift and carry items up to
ten pounds, and could occasionally reach overhead, handle,
finger, feel and push and pull objects with both hands. (Tr.
1746-48.) He recommended that she never climb ladders or
scaffolds, balance, stoop, kneel, crouch, crawl, or be
exposed to heights, moving mechanical parts, humidity,
wetness, dust, odors, fumes, extreme cold or heat and
vibrations. (Tr. 1749-50.) He stated that she could sit for a
total of 120 minutes per workday, stand for 60 minutes per
workday, and walk for 60 minutes per workday. (Tr. 1747.)
Finally, he opined that she could shop, travel alone, use
public transportation, prepare meals, sort, handle, and use
paper and files but could not walk far without a cane. (Tr.
1751.)

b.
Plaintiff's Mental Health

Plaintiff
was examined by several mental health professionals during
the relevant period. The Court will discuss each in turn.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;First,
on August 10, 2010, plaintiff was examined by consultative
psychiatrist Dr. Dmitri Bougakov. (Tr. 567-71.) Dr. Bougakov
diagnosed plaintiff with depressive and anxiety disorders,
current opioid dependence, and cocaine dependence in
remission. (Tr. 569-70.) Plaintiff reported that she
performed household chores by herself on a daily basis, that
she was capable of traveling alone but preferred to go with
someone else because she was &ldquo;uncomfortable by herself
around people, &rdquo; that she spent little time with
friends, but had a good relationship with her family, despite
&ldquo;often get[ting] into fights because of her
moods.&rdquo; (Tr. 569.) She reported that on a typical day,
she watched television and took care of her household.
(Id.) Dr. Bougakov noted that she appeared her
stated age, was sufficiently groomed, significantly
overweight, and that she made appropriate eye contact. (Tr.
568.) He further reported that her speech was fluent, her
language was adequate, her thought processes were
&ldquo;coherent and goal directed, &rdquo; that she was
well-oriented, and that her attention and concentration were
&ldquo;intact for counting, simple calculations, and serial
3s.&rdquo; (Id.) He found her affect ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.